Madras High Court
Punitha Parisutharaj vs Arul Kumar on 23 June, 2023
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
Punitha Parisutharaj ... Appellant
vs.
1.Arul Kumar
2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Branch Manager,
T.S.No.1817, Neela South Road,
Nagapattinam Town and District Munsifi. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Award dated 10.01.2013 in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.44 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (District Judge) at Karaikal.
For Appellant : Ms.G.Lavanya
For Respondents : Mr.Elaveera Ravindran [R2]
R1–Notice Served–No Appearance
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied by the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2023,
made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.44 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Karaikal, the appellant/claimant herein
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 140 and 166(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the
injury sustained by him in the road accident that occurred on 15.09.2011.
3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides' arguments and upon
perusing both oral and documentary evidence, has granted compensation
of Rs.63,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of petition i.e.,
07.03.2012 till the date of deposit.
4. Ms.Lavanya, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would
argue that the claimant who sustained fracture over the left foot and left leg
due to the accident had claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.63,000/- which is very less. The Doctor
namely PW2 assessed the disability of the appellant/claimant as 35%.
Whereas the Tribunal has taken only 25%, without assigning any reason is
incorrect. As the accident had taken place in the year 2011, considering
the nature of injury, per percentage Rs.3,000/- may be granted. As per
Ex.P11 Certificate issued by the Iron Rod Fitters Association, the
appellant/claimant was earning a sum of Rs.750/- per day / Rs.22,500/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
p.m., and the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- is on the
lower side. It is her arguments that for calculating loss of income during the
treatment period, as the appellant/claimant was at home for six months,
loss of income may be awarded for the treatment period. The amount
granted for Transportation, Pain and Suffering are on the lower side. The
learned counsel would further contend that no amount was granted for
Future Medical Expenses.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would strenuously argue that the amount granted for pain and
suffering undergone by the appellant/claimant, for extra nourishment and
transportation are quite reasonable. The Tribunal has reduced the
disability from 35% to 25%, considering the nature of injury sustained by
the appellant is reasonable and that may be confirmed and prayed to
dismiss the Appeal.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both sides and
perused the entire materials available on record.
7. At the outset, the manner in which the accident had taken place is
not in dispute. It is the evidence of PW1, who is the
injured/appellant/claimant coupled with the details found in Ex.P1-Copy of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
First Information Report registered in Crime No.122 of 2011 of Nieravy
Police Station, Karaikal, it appears that on 15.09.2011, at about 8.15 p.m.,
while the appellant was proceeding along the Karaikal Nagore Main Road,
in TVS Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.PY-02-J-9552 at the point of
Ammalchattiram in front of Ramakrishna Saw Mill, a Mahindra Maxicab
(Tourist Van) bearing Reg.No.TN-51-F-0064 came in a rash and negligent
manner and hit on the claimant's vehicle, thereby the appellant/claimant
sustained fracture of bone on the left foot and sustained injuries over other
parts of the body.
8. It is discernible from the evidence of PW1-injured and PW2-
Dr.Rajagopal, who assessed the disability of the appellant/claimant
coupled with the treatment records, Ex.P7 Accident Register issued by the
Government General Hospital, Karaikal, Ex.P5-Followup Card of the
petitioner issued by the Government Hospital, Pondicherry and Ex.P6-Out
Patient Slip of the petitioner issued by the Government Hospital,
Pondicherry that the appellant/claimant sustained fracture over his left foot.
The Doctor, who assessed the disability of the appellant/claimant as 35%
and he has stated that if physiotherapy is done there is a chance of
reduction of disability by 2%. Considering the age and the oral evidence let
in by the claimant side and the treatment records, this Court deems fit to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
fix the disability as 30%.
9. The date of accident is 15.09.2011. The appellant/claimant has
stated that he is a iron rod fitter in the field of building construction and was
earning Rs.750/- per day and Rs.22,500/- p.m. To substantiate the same,
Certificate issued by the Iron Rod Fitters Association has been marked as
Ex.P11. Wherein his wage is mentioned as Rs.750/- per day and
Rs.22,500/- p.m. No witness connected with the said document of the
appellant, before the Tribunal.
10.As per the law laid down in Syed Sadiq v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the income of a injured person aged
about 24 years, who was a vegetable vendor as Rs.6,500/- per month for
the accident occurred in the year 2008. Therefore,this Court deems fit to
fix the monthly income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.10,000/- p.m. As
the appellant had suffered fracture of bone over his left foot, as a fitter in
the field of building construction, he has to stand and do the work and he
would definitely have difficulties in attending his work as he done before.
Considering the nature of injuries in the work of the appellant/claimant it is
reasonable to grant loss of income for four months which works out to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
Rs.40,000/- (Rs.10,000/- X 4). As amount of Rs.6,000/- was already
awarded by the Tribunal, in addition to the said amount a sum of
Rs.34,000/- is granted under the head of loss of income during treatment
period.
11. For pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- is granted in addition to the
amount already granted by the Tribunal. It is seen from the perusal of
treatment records that he had taken treatment at Government Hospital,
Karaikal and Government Hospital at Pondicherry as he suffered fracture
over left foot, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted in addition to the amount
already awarded for transportation expenses. As the appellant/claimant
had sustained fracture over his left foot, he would have engaged some
attender during treatment period, therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is
granted towards attender charges.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would argue that
considering the age and nature of work attended by the claimant, per
percentage Rs.3000/- be awarded. In this regard, the learned counsel for
the appellant/claimant has cited the judgment of this Court in
C.M.A.Nos.2724of 2014 and 1789 of 2016 dated 26.08.2021. For the
disability of 30%, Rs.3,000/- per percentage i.e., 30% X Rs.3000/- =
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
Rs.90,000/- is hereby granted. An amount of Rs.25,000/- has already been
awarded by the Tribunal, now Rs.65,000/- is granted in addition to the
amount already awarded towards disability. In respect of other heads, the
amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable, therefore, it
needs no interference. Therefore, the Compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is reworked as tabulated below:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No. awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted or
reduced
1 Pain and Sufferings Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 35,000/- Enhanced
2 Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed
3 Partial Permanent Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 90,000/- Enhanced
Disability
4 Transportation Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 7,000/- Enhanced
Expenses
5 Loss of Income during Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Enhanced
treatment period
6 Attender Charges NIL Rs. 10,000/- Granted
Total Rs.63,000/- Rs.1,87,000/-
13. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.63,000/- to Rs.1,87,000/- which would carry interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum.
14. In the result,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.63,000/- to Rs.1,87,000/-.
(iii) The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation amount i.e., Rs.1,87,000/-(less the amount
already deposited if any) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.44 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (District Judge) at Karaikal, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
(iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is at liberty
to withdraw the same as per the Orders passed by the Tribunal after
following due process of law. The claimants are directed to pay the Court
fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal
below shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of the certified
copy showing proof of payment of Court fee by the claimant.
23.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
To:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
District Judge) at Karaikal.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
C.M.A.No.1182 of 2020
23.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
